To what extent is reasonable doubt an effective safeguard in Twelve

Angry Men?
Reginald Roses Twelve Angry Men explores the notion of reasonable doubt, a
judicial concept open to a diversity of interpretations. Overall, Rose extols
reasonable doubt, presenting it as an effective safeguard- that is, in its capacity
to protect the life of the accused. Given the quality of the evidence at hand,
reasonable doubt fulfils its function as a reliable safeguard. It is also reasonable
doubt that ensures rationality and moral correctness triumph over fear, prejudice
and apathy. However, Rose considers this safeguard as not only efficient in the
sense that it upholds the life of an innocent victim. Equally, he asserts, so too
does it thrust the benefit of the doubt in the favour of guilty persons.
Consistently throughout the play, Rose reiterates the contentious nature of
circumstantial evidence. In cases in which this is deemed the most predominant
form of evidence, Rose insinuates that it is only through reasonable doubt that
the defendant can attain salvation. Juror 8 instigates the inquisition into
reasonable doubt, urging his peers to challenge the cases dubious facts and at
the very least, entertain the possibility that they could be wrong, suppose were
wrong? Juror 8 exemplifies this sentiment through a careful reconstruction of the
old mans witness testimony that exposes its flaws. From this it is made apparent
that there is reasonable doubt as to whether the man who drags one leg when
he walks could have heard the boys voice and recognised his face. Similarly,
the womens testimony, once considered unshakeable by some, is also deemed
insufficient by the plays denouement. Once the womens eyesight is brought
into question, the jurors come to the collective conclusion that on such evidence,
tainted by human subjectivity, you cant send someone off to die. Thus, it is
only through revisiting the witness testimonies is Juror 8 and his fellow jurors
able to accrue the reasonable doubt required to acquit the boy. By encouraging
this scrutinisation of the cases facts which, in turn, instils uncertainty within
the jury, reasonable doubt preserves the life of the accused.
Additionally, reasonable doubt engenders qualities of humanity and a sense of
civic duty within its jurors. Effectively, it is this moral responsibility that
safeguards the accused from prejudice and other harmful societal influences. The
plays opposition to reasonable doubt comes in the form of jurors who are
narrowed by factors such as their subjectivity, indifference and fear. For instance,
Juror 10s subconscious fear of a socio-economic minority translates in his openly
prejudicial views, as he generalises the accused as real trash due to his slum
background. Other jurors such as the 7 th appear to objectify the boys life,
amounting it to nothing in the midst of the trivial distractions that gripped
America in its time. These attitudes echo through Juror 10s assertion that
reasonable doubt is nothing but words; as the two jurors, in addition to 3 rd Juror,
perceive it as only an obstacle to their subjective goals. However, it is the
integrity of Juror 8 that ensures majority can transcend such undermining
influences, and in doing so, fulfil their obligation to the state by the dramas
conclusion. As he begins the case looking out the window, so to peers begin to
move to the side of objectivity, which even compels the sceptical Juror 4 to
comprehend the cases uncertainty, I now have reasonable doubt. Through the
refreshing sincerity of his discourse, Juror 8 is able to convince the jury to acquit
the boy, not because he is proven to be innocent, but because it is simply the
right thing to do. Hence, reasonable doubt proves a safeguard of enormous
value to the defendant, ensuring his life is not subject to the reckless abandon
of society.

To what extent is reasonable doubt an effective safeguard in Twelve

Angry Men?
In functioning as an effective safeguard, reasonable doubt does not only have
the capacity to protect the innocent, but also the jurisdiction to acquit criminals.
The situation of the jury room through which the New York skyline can be seen
serves as a constant remind to the jurors of the societal implications of their
decision. Rose asserts that although irrational prejudice remains incompatible
with the process of justice, other intimations, based on the boys proclivity for
delinquency, are, to an extent, understandable. Roses jurors are torn between
their attempts to discern facts from the fancy or to conform to their intuition,
that the boy probably did murder his father and poses a threat to society. Rose
characterises the struggle for the administration of justice through the
interpersonal conflict of Juror 8. 8th Jurors conscious decision that it is better to
defend a guilty criminal than convict an innocent victim, affects him from the
plays beginning right through to its end. The stage directions reveal he is
torment[ed] by the realisation that he, through his perseverance in reasonable
doubt, may be responsible for releasing a guilty man to the community.
Through the 8th Juror, Rose portrays the fragility of reasonable doubt. The
playwright implicates what can potentially be a safeguard for the innocent can
also become a dangerously effective loophole in which guilty criminals may
obtain pardon.
In essence, Reginald Rose depicts reasonable doubt as an effective safeguard for
the accused in every sense. It establishes that the defendant cannot be
acquitted when there is uncertainty, of which, emanates from the cases
circumstantial evidence. In conjunction, it ensures the defendant receives a fair
trial, dominated by reason more so than bias. Ultimately, Rose encapsulates the
safeguards efficiency through his argument that the benefit of reasonable doubt
could have easily been entrusted with a criminal in the same way it may have
upheld the life of an innocent boy.